↑ Up

E-SAT---3.5.1.SAT-Sat.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem  : SYN078-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 03:32:27 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Satisfiable 0.15s 0.60s
% Output   : Saturation 0.15s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : ERROR: Analysing output (Could not find formula named c_0_12ERROR: Could not build tree for root c_0_22ERROR: MakeTreeStats fails)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(X3)
    | X2 != f(X2)
    | ~ big_f(X1)
    | big_f(f(X3))
    | big_f(X2) ),
    c_0_12,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(b)
    | X2 != f(X2)
    | ~ big_f(X1)
    | big_f(X2) ),
    c_0_13,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
    ( X2 != f(X2)
    | ~ big_f(X1)
    | b = f(b)
    | big_f(X2) ),
    c_0_14,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
    ( X2 != f(X2)
    | ~ big_f(X1)
    | big_f(a)
    | big_f(X2) ),
    c_0_15,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(X1)
    | ~ big_f(f(c))
    | big_f(f(X1)) ),
    c_0_16,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_27,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(X1)
    | big_f(f(X1))
    | big_f(c) ),
    c_0_17,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(f(c))
    | b = f(b) ),
    c_0_18,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_29,negated_conjecture,
    ( b = f(b)
    | big_f(c) ),
    clause_7,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(b)
    | ~ big_f(f(c)) ),
    c_0_19,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_31,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(f(c))
    | big_f(a) ),
    c_0_20,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_32,negated_conjecture,
    ( ~ big_f(b)
    | big_f(c) ),
    c_0_21,
    [final] ).

cnf(c_0_33,negated_conjecture,
    ( big_f(a)
    | big_f(c) ),
    clause_6,
    [final] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem  : SYN078-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.54  % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.54  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.54  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.54  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.54  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.54  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.54  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.11/0.54  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:42:43 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.54  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.11/0.54  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.58  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.58  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.15/0.60  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % new_bool_1 with pid 1539227 completed with status 1
% 0.15/0.60  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.15/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.60  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.60  % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.60  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % SubtermCWHack with pid 1539234 completed with status 1
% 0.15/0.60  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.60  % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.60  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.60  % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.60  % Search class: FGHSF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.60  % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.60  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.60  
% 0.15/0.60  % No proof found!
% 0.15/0.60  % SZS status Satisfiable
% 0.15/0.60  % SZS output start Saturation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.60  % Parsed axioms                        : 12
% 0.15/0.60  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Initial clauses                      : 12
% 0.15/0.60  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 12
% 0.15/0.60  % Processed clauses                    : 15
% 0.15/0.60  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % ...subsumed                          : 3
% 0.15/0.60  % ...remaining for further processing  : 12
% 0.15/0.60  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Generated clauses                    : 9
% 0.15/0.60  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.15/0.60  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Paramodulations                      : 9
% 0.15/0.60  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60  % Current number of processed clauses  : 12
% 0.15/0.60  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Negative unit clauses             : 0
% 0.15/0.60  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 12
% 0.15/0.60  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.60  % ...number of literals in the above   : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Current number of archived clauses   : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 8
% 0.15/0.60  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.15/0.60  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 3
% 0.15/0.60  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.15/0.60  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 535
% 0.15/0.60  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 27
% 0.15/0.60  
% 0.15/0.60  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.60  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.60  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.60  % Total time               : 0.005 s
% 0.15/0.60  % Maximum resident set size: 3840 pages
% 0.15/0.60  
% 0.15/0.60  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.60  % User time                : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.60  % System time              : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.60  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.60  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.60  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------